Roosh begs Trump to save men from nagging women, who are basically terrorists if you think about it

Roosh Valizadeh — alleged pickup artist, ironic rape legalization advocate and big league Trump fan — has a request for our failed president: Protect men from naggy women, who are basically a bunch of terrorists, if you think about it.

In an “Open Letter” to the current inhabitant of the White House, Roosh begs for some help combating “the problems … that [have] resulted from a society that has normalized hatred of men and masculinity.”

Foremost amongst them: nagging.

Sadly, the average man today is looked upon with contempt and the source of all problems that women complain about (both real and imagined), even though they are the most privileged class of female that exists in the world today.

Yes, that’s right: women are “the most privileged class of female that exists in the world today.” Also, presuming that Roosh is talking about human females and not, say, lady giraffes, women are also the least privileged class of (human) female that exists in the world today, given that they are the only class of (human) female that exists in the world today.

So how did these simultaneously most and least privileged females put men in such a terrible place? With the NAGGING.

As you already know, once a woman successfully nags you into correcting what she perceives as a problem, she immediately begins work on correcting another, and then another, until you wake up to find yourself completely submissive to a woman whose behavior now matches that of a radical Islamic terrorist.

Thanks to the leftist pet causes of feminism and social justice, which were enabled by the globalists who sought to defeat you, the matriarchal reign of terror has culminated with all men presumed to be rapists and oppressors, and who need to be “taught” how not to abuse women, as if it’s a natural-born instinct of ours like eating or sleeping.

Being told that it’s a bad thing to abuse women is apparently equivalent to being run down by a terrorist in a truck at an outdoor market.

Once the culture has accepted the lie that all living men are active oppressors, it was easy to push other lies that men are unfairly stealing money from women by earning more than them for the same labor.

Next thing you know, incompetent women will take over the workplace and fire men with opinions about things!

The next step in correcting this “wrong” is for women who are less skilled than men to get hired and promoted over men. Relentless propaganda in the media and academia has so infected the workforce and female-dominated Human Resources departments that a productive man is one bogus accusation away from destitution. If his workplace has at least one woman, he can no longer share his opinions without fear of causing offense and getting fired.

It’s true! As a result, no men in America feel free to express their opinions about any subject whatsoever and have to be coaxed gently into saying anything at all.

The situation is even worse outside of work. Unless a man is prepared to wear a bodycam 24 hours a day, he is at risk for false accusations of harassment or rape.

This is why pretty much every man in America today refuses to venture outside without first putting on a full camera rig.

Standard camera rig for American males

But alas, this is not enough! Because “women are highly eager to lie for personal or financial gain,” hapless American men are forced to give up on

relationships, work, and even educating themselves in university, simply because they realize how badly the system is rigged against them. Men have become second class citizens, expected to bow down to women simply because they lack a vagina. While women shriek of their safe spaces, stocked with coloring books and crayons, men are subject to attack from any space they enter, because of laws and institutional rules that have been changed to their detriment.

The men who follow me rather take it on the chin and solve their problems than complain about their plight, but we still can’t ignore the reality that relations between men and women are the worst it’s ever been thank to a multi-decade push by globalists to invert the natural order and lift women above men.

It’s so weird that women don’t even want to accept that their proper place is beneath men like Roosh.

We now live in a culture where women want to replace the role of men in employment, positions of power, and even within relationships as they gleefully brag about the “end of men” and how the world would just be better if we didn’t exist.

Roosh is so right here! I mean, look how men are struggling to cling on what little shreds of power they have left in politics, as these pictures of recent White House signing ceremonies suggest.

I mean, just look what happens! You let a couple of women in the room and — BAM! — the next thing you know everyone’s a woman wearing some kind of weird woman uniform and Trump has been replaced by Hillary Clinton!

But happily Roosh has a solution to the tyranny that female nagging has wrought. All Trump needs to do is to starve the “feminist pigs so that nature can reassert itself” — by cutting off all federal funding for lady things!

“[S]top the government from acting as a daddy and husband to women,” Roosh begs Trump.

Halt any program that performs a function that a father or husband could perform. This means no free money, no welfare, and no “reproductive health services.” Private charities can pick up the slack for widows and women who weren’t pleasing enough to land a husband. I also urge you to stop any program that attempts to turn women into men, such as university sports funding or scholarship programs that push unqualified women into science. As a masculine man yourself, do you see any point in having programs that encourage a woman to leech off of free help instead of falling into the arms of a man she must open her heart to in order to receive material benefits?

That’s right: women must learn to submit to men if they want to have any “material benefits” at all! It’s only fair!

If you thought Hillary Clinton was a nasty woman, I wish you could see the attitude of a basic run-of-the-mill middle class American girl who knows that there will be no consequences for her actions because she will be saved by a culture that thinks she’s a victim and a government that actively competes with men to be her husband. It’s become so bad that there are now male movements which dedicate themselves to not interacting with women at all.

And what a tragedy it is that these brave Men Going Their Own Way have been fired by quit the women of the world!

But Roosh doesn’t want to seem ungrateful to the mighty Trump, and ends his little letter on an up note.

Thankfully, even if you do nothing that I kindly suggest, your existence alone is a great help to men, who will now feel that it’s okay to proudly display their masculinity without feeling shame for having the natural urges to compete, achieve, conquer, and grow.

Trump truly is an inspiration to all men who want to achieve positions of power without having any discernible qualifications for their jobs.

Roosh even gives props to Trump’s lovely wife, despite the disconcerting fact that she’s a woman.

Even the presence of your European wife may inspire women to rediscover their feminine instincts, of standing by their man as he climbs the ladder of success.

Even if she stands by him from hundreds of miles away because she apparently doesn’t want to even live in the same city as he does, for perfectly understandable reasons.

I mean, hey, if she’s not in the same city, how can she even nag him? By evidently driving his wife away from him with his completely terrible personality, Trump is already winning the war on nagging, without even lifting a finger!

Comments

And, like, having “poly” be a label–like, fuck, dude, what the hell predispositions you to not be opened to polyamorous relationships like being bi or whatever?

Not trying to be too confrontational here but, what the fuck do you care what my predispositions are? Why do I need to prove to you that I don’t share your sexual preferences? Jebus.

That wasn’t addressed to you. That was to Dali and her statement. I also may have worded that wrong, as I’m wondering what would make polyamory be something that is like being bi. I also used dude as a sort of generic you in this situation but if Dali doesn’t want to be called dude, she can tell me.

You haven’t provided any argument as for why the same reasoning won’t apply to the label poly. If you think the analogy sucks, then maybe you should, ya know, actually explain why.

I don’t think I wrote it clearly the first time so let me reword what I’m trying to say: Is poly and monogamy genuinely something that’s akin to sexuality or romantic attraction? I don’t think so because you can be interested in it but you need permission to act on it while you don’t need permission to act out on your sexuality–which is to say, you don’t need to ask permission to find someone attractive or to masterbate to porn or whatever (taking relationships out of the equation because you don’t need to be in a relationship to have a sexual orientation). While I think it’s separate from the kink community, I think it’s more comparable the kink scene and the kink scene is not something that’s like a sexuality or romantic attraction.

Of course, it could be because I’m pansexual and aromantic–I separate my sexuality and romantic attraction, and maybe I’m thinking about relationships differently because of that.

Also, I wasn’t calling you dude, and I’m not sure if I ever did but I apologize if I have ever and I won’t do it again.

I’m aroace (after a fashion). In my case, I’m less mono as nullo. Just 1 partner is 1 too many. Which I happily deal with, but limits are meant to be bent not broken. The same issues I have with dating a single person multiplied is not summat I want. Thus monogamy.

However, say, someone is dating one person and they are dating someone else. They are still participating in a polyamorous/open relationship, even if the first someone is only dating one person. Not everyone involved has to be dating each other or dating at all.

Like, polyamory is this huge umbrella term for different relationships, just like monogamy is; the only real different between monogamy and polyamory is that it involves at least three people on occasion, so that’s one reason why I’m confused why people would write off polyamory all together.

Jack, why the hell have you been such a raging holier-than-thou arsehole to us these past couple of weeks? We’re your friends and you’ve been treating us like trolls.

Lately I’ve been feeling a lot of people have been twisting my words around or not reading what I’m saying correctly but it may be that I haven’t been taking my time with replying like I use to, so I’m misreading what people have written and being the asshole instead. I have been feeling on edge lately and that may be affecting my responses. I’ll try to take my time replying like I use to.

the only real different between monogamy and polyamory is that it involves at least three people on occasion, so that’s one reason why I’m confused why people would write off polyamory all together.

I can tell you that I would have a major problem with a poly person trying to poly with me in the equation. Like, that is absolutely a dealbreaker. So that is why I would just write off polyamory altogether. I’m not only not poly myself, I am not okay with my partner being poly. Poly people need to date someone other than me.

I don’t really see a difference here between what you’re saying and a pansexual person saying that they just can’t understand why anyone would write off every gender except one out of hand.

Okay, maybe spell out a little more clearly who you’re talking to at any given moment?

I’m gonna quickly reply to the parts that I think are responses to my comments.

Is poly and monogamy genuinely something that’s akin to sexuality or romantic attraction? I don’t think so because you can be interested in it but you need permission to act on it while you don’t need permission to act out on your sexuality–which is to say, you don’t need to ask permission to find someone attractive or to masterbate to porn or whatever (taking relationships out of the equation because you don’t need to be in a relationship to have a sexual orientation).

You are just saying the same thing again, as far as I can tell. You always need permission to act on any kind of sexuality that involves the participation of other people. You never need permission to act on any kind of sexuality that does not involve the participation, or inconveniencing, of other people (or animals, or whatever).

I think you’re simply conflating “interest in X” with “performing X”. You say that you don’t need to ask permission in order to find someone attractive. As I have previously pointed out, you also don’t need to ask permission in order to find several people attractive at the same time.

You say “poly” is not an orientation because you need permisson to “act on it”. Presumably, by this you mean entering a poly relationship, romantic and/or sexual. Again, the same is true for things you do consider orientations. If you’re a straight man and you want to have sex with a woman, you’re gonna need her permission. If you just want to think of her while masturbating, you don’t need any permission (although keeping it to yourself might be a good idea).

I think it’s pretty clear that you’re starting with your conclusion and working backwards to arrive at your assumptions. Your definition of “acting out one’s sexuality” is completely different when you talk about poly as compared to when you talk about bi/gay/straight. In the former, you narrow down the definition of “acting” to scenarios which involve other people. In the latter, you accept fantasizing and just feeling attraction as instances of “acting”. You then go on to use these lopsided critera in order to reach the conclusion that one is an orientation and the other isn’t.

It’s not making any sense. In fact, if I knew you to be a troll my reply would be:

“Shorter Jack: If it works a certain way for me, then it must work that way for everybody else too. If I don’t understand it, it doesn’t exist.”

However, I know that you are not a troll, so I’m giving you a massive benefit of the doubt, and I’m treating you with some basic level of respect despite finding your reasoning laughable.

…which kinda brings me to the other thing. You say you’ve been feeling “on edge lately”. I don’t know exactly what that means, but I think I can relate. I am a very moody person, and my moods can severely influence how I communicate and sometimes how I treat other people. I’ve worked really hard to ameliorate this. I get that sometimes (generic) you can come across as harsher and more confrontational than intended.

I don’t think this really explains why you would go out of your way to be so condescending. You should know (I hope?) that I’m not arguing in bad faith, and that I’m not a Rooshite level dudebro. I’m not asking for unquestioned immunity, just some acknowledgment that I didn’t suddenly appear at this blog 3 hours ago and started swinging at you for no apparent reason. I’m a pretty regular commenter of more than 2 years, who generally likes you and agrees with you on nearly everything. Please treat me as such, or we will have a very difficult time getting along in the future.

However, say, someone is dating one person and they are dating someone else. They are still participating in a polyamorous/open relationship, even if the first someone is only dating one person. Not everyone involved has to be dating each other or dating at all

Precisely! Which is why I note the difference between polyamory the relationship structure and polyamory the… preference? Not great with words, but I hope the point stands. By the first, I’m poly cos my girlfriend is married. By the second, I’m not cos I’ve got somebody and neither need nor want anyone else

the only real different between monogamy and polyamory is that it involves at least three people on occasion, so that’s one reason why I’m confused why people would write off polyamory all together

Thing is, you see that difference as minor. And it is to you. And that’s just fine. But it isn’t for everyone. For most people. Neither perspective is wrong, and that’s OK. But, if we’re gonna be asking questions, why not ask yourself why you consider it not a big deal rather than asking why other people disagree?

Which is why I note the difference between polyamory the relationship structure and polyamory the… preference?

I like this way of framing it. I’m someone who feels they are poly but respects that my wife did not sign on for that so will likely never know.
*shrugs*
It’s the society I have. I want it better for the next generations.

1. I don’t know, but this “Labelling!” erasure of my identity as poly sure feels a lot like the “Identity politics!” erasure of my identity as gay.

2. Why does it even matter? Why does what I identify as upset you?

I guess what it really boils down to is that the argument we’re having here is something that people have been doing to allow poly people to be included in the LGBT+ community, even when they aren’t gay, lesbians, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc.

Maybe I’m being the asshole here, but I don’t think being poly on its own makes you LGBT+, thus I don’t think it’s a label that should be conflated with bisexuality and stuff. It’s a different kind of label, not like sexuality or romantic attraction, especially since–while sexuality is fluid and it can change–you can lose interest in being in a polyamorous relationship and have the choice to participate in polyamory while you can’t really opt out of being bisexual or asexual or transgender or whatever.

Not that what I have to say on this subject has much relevance, but this

1. I don’t know, but this “Labelling!” erasure of my identity as poly sure feels a lot like the “Identity politics!” erasure of my identity as gay.

is kinda where I find myself. I’m very conflicted on whether I’d say that I’m poly or not, because I have more than a passing interest in having an open relationship, but I’m not sure that I actually have the emotional capacity to handle one. I don’t think it’s fair to say that there can’t be a “poly” or “mono” label to apply to people outside of already-established relationships, because it’s kind of implying that people just don’t know themselves all that well and anyone can be either, which I don’t think is true.

Yes, you can “choose” to pursue a poly relationship, but if you end up finding that you can’t do it, what would the “correct” label be if not “monogamous”? If you’ve only ever “chosen” to have monogamous relationships and you’ve found that you’re not particularly happy in them, what other label would apply than “polyamorous”? What purpose does it serve to only have those labels apply to existing relationships and be null and void to the people actually in said relationships?

Even though I don’t know you that well except from lurking and I’ve commented maybe thrice, please allow me to tell you this:

Reading you handle that conflict was really, really fucking inspiring.
I came to find out what happened with OF and NF and viscaria because I felt worried and instead I found a wonderful example on how to have and at least partially solve a conflict respectfully and without any cruel words.
Instead all of you tried to understand each other and to find a solution, even if it’s just agreeing to disagree.
Thank you for showing me – again – how good people can be, especially considering the crap this website deals with.

We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism. This blog is NOT a safe space; given the subject matter -- misogyny and hate -- there's really no way it could be.